Search

Embedded in a Systemic Functional understanding of education as an initiation into knowledge structures and specific activities, both of which are fundamentally mediated by language, this paper addresses one of the critical concerns around CLIL: a possible mismatch between students' cognitive level and their L2 proficiency. The focus is on acts of classifying, comparing and contrasting facts, objects, phenomena, abstract ideas and concepts. Such cognitive and verbal actions are key in the construction of specialist knowledge, having been bundled in an umbrella cognitive discourse function (CDF) categorize. To operationalize this CDF, we develop a conceptual map through an exploratory, data-driven analysis of an oral learner corpus in L2 English and L1 Spanish on science and history topics collected in primary bilingual schools in Madrid. We also use SFL tools to examine lexico-grammatical choices which students employ to realize categorize across the two subjects and languages. The analysis shows that students encounter a range of difficulties, both conceptual and linguistic, when forming complete and appropriate categorizations in both languages. The results obtained across subjects reveal clear subject-specific tendencies in how categorizing is carried out: comparing seems to be a defining figure of thought in history while classifications were predominant in science.

Apart from linguistic diversity and multilingualism, empirical research into diversity is only in its beginnings in the Austrian educational context. CLIL research, on the other hand, is well-established but has not tended to focus on pedagogical practices. This study explores teachers' and students' self-reported experiences in Austrian CLIL classrooms with regard to the phenomenon of diversity and the pedagogical practices addressing it. This mixed-methods study used the research instruments (questionnaires, interview guides) developed in the ADiBE project. Three Viennese secondary schools with two classes each participated in the study. In total, 132 students answered the questionnaires. Six focus group interviews with 6-8 participants were conducted (one for each participating class). Teacher questionnaires were distributed in but also beyond the participating schools (N = 30), and eight teachers from the participating schools were interviewed. With regard to the phenomenon of diversity as such, our results suggest a system-inherent ambivalence between segregation and egalitarianism. Concerning pedagogical practices during CLIL lessons, such as language scaffolding, learner-centred design or use of German, the responses of students and teachers show that different aspects of classroom reality carry different weight with the two groups of participants.

Research on L2 collaborative writing (CW), where learners work together to co-construct a single text, has received increased attention in the last decades. Studies with adult learners have shown that collaboration benefits learners’ written products in terms of quantitative measures of accuracy and, more rarely, complexity and fluency (CAF) as well as qualitative global ratings. Additionally, research has shown that when adult learners work in pairs, they generate and resolve correctly a large number of language-related episodes (LREs). However, little is known as to whether CW benefits the writing performance of secondary school EFL learners, and to what extent these learners are able to produce and resolve LREs correctly. To address these two gaps, the present study compared the writing performance of 96 adolescent learners in Kosovo, assigned to work in pairs (n = 32) or individually (n = 32), and analysed the LREs produced by the pairs. The results suggest that pairs produced better texts in terms of CAF as well as overall text quality. Pairs also generated and resolved correctly a large proportion of LREs. In light of these findings, the use of CW is established as a viable pedagogic tool in the teaching of L2 writing with adolescent EFL learners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This overview of seven years of research on language learning and teaching in Austria reflects a period of steady growth for the language teaching and learning research community, a development due to a national policy agenda aiming for a stronger research base in teacher education. The target languages of the teaching and learning processes investigated are primarily German, English, French, Italian, Spanish as well as several Slavic languages, reflecting the geographical, sociolinguistic and language policy situation of this increasingly multilingual country. This multilingualism means there are clearly many more first languages (L1s) than only German involved in the learning situations investigated. While all the studies reviewed here illustrate research driven by a combination of local and global concerns in connection with different theoretical frameworks, some specific clusters of research interest emerge. These are: societal and individual multilingualism, language education policy, language teacher education, language(s) in other subjects, early language learning, language acquisition and learning, literature and culture, testing and standardisation, digital media, and teaching materials.

Current research on the in-class discursive realities in English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) classrooms has been mostly restricted to whole class scenarios, whereas student-student interactive discourse in task-based activities is largely ignored. This study explores peer interactions among university students in an EMI marketing course in China, specifically focusing on repair practices. The data mainly comprised transcribed recordings of 26 peer interactions during two types of tasks, i.e. topic discussions and simulations. Findings reveal that the task type plays an important role in how various trouble sources are addressed. In both task types, there is a dominance of factual repairables, which are addressed through various collaboratively constructed repair trajectories. However, the relatively informal yet concept-related topic discussions elicit more frequent repair in general and linguistic-form related repair in particular than the relatively formal but hands-on natured simulations, though the latter type of task leads to more procedural and processing-related repairs. Implications are discussed regarding the importance of raising teachers' awareness that different activities hold different language and content learning opportunities in peer interactions in EMI classes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Classrooms the world over are full of people who, for different reasons, are learning additional languages and/or are studying through languages that are not their first. Gaining insight into such contexts is complicated for researchers and practitioners alike by the myriad of contextual variables that come with different implementations and make comparison and generalization a tricky business. We welcome Cenoz et al.'s (2013) article as an important contribution to the debate on how best to tackle this problem. In this Forum piece we would like to, however, redress the balance on two issues: the fact that terminologies have histories and the emphases on the research agenda suggested for future Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) research.

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is one of the most dynamic pedagogic trends in language teaching in Europe, and yet, the enthusiasm with which this innovation is implemented by stakeholders and "made a success" is not fully understood. In this paper we argue for an investigation of CLIL implementation as a form of extended language policy, which relates language management, practice and beliefs, and so expands the notion of policy well beyond a top-down legislation. In this contribution, the suggested centrality of beliefs to CLIL policy analysis will be shown by a detailed investigation into the lay theories of teachers and learners involved in CLIL instruction in Austrian upper secondary colleges of technology, which traditionally attract students considered as relatively unsuccessful foreign language learners. The data consist of 48 in-depth interviews with teachers and students in this setting, covering a range of teacher specialisations and of student abilities. The discursive and content analysis of these interviews shows clear clusters of beliefs relating to language learning, the effects and benefits of CLIL and to the construction of success regarding CLIL. Findings suggest that the strength of beliefs and the relative absence of language management result in a construction of CLIL and of CLIL success that is partly at odds with those of experts or policy-makers, but which is linked directly to local CLIL practices. Issues arising of these mismatches are discussed. (Contains 3 notes.)

This overview of six years of research on language learning and teaching in Austria covers a period of dynamic development in the field. While all the studies reviewed here illustrate research driven by a combination of local and global concerns and theoretical frameworks, some specific clusters of research interest emerge. The first of these focuses on issues connected with multilingualism in present-day society in terms of language policy, theory development and, importantly, the critical scrutiny of dominant discursive practices in connection with minority and migrant languages. In combination with this focus, there is a concern with German as a second or foreign language in a number of contexts. A second cluster concerns the area of language testing and assessment, which has gained political import due to changes in national education policy and the introduction of standardized tests. Finally, a third cluster of research concerns the diverse types of specialized language instruction, including the introduction of foreign language instruction from age six onwards, the rise of academic writing instruction, English-medium education and, as a final more general issue, the role of English as a dominant language in the canon of all foreign and second languages in Austria.

Using a pragmatic framework, this paper examines how directives are performed by teachers and students in Finnish and Austrian CLIL classrooms, that is settings where a foreign language (in this case English) is used as the medium of instruction in non-language subjects such as history or chemistry. We explore how interpersonal aspects of communication get realized in the performance of directives, and the way contextual factors such as the object of directives (information/action) or the type of classroom register (instructional/regulative) affect speakers' directness choices. The findings show that both these contextual factors interact systematically with speakers' use of directives. For example, demands for information seem to be fully sanctioned by the educational context and are therefore normally performed directly by both teachers and students whereas demands for action require more interpersonal work, evidenced by the more indirect strategies used. Moreover, while there are student demands for information in both instructional and regulative register, students' right to perform directives for action seems to be restricted to regulative register. Our results show how the specific conditions of classroom discourse affect the language environment in CLIL classrooms and we argue this should be taken into account when formulating language goals for this educational approach.

Investigates tendencies with regard to gender-specific or gender-non-specific designations in English and German by means of nouns in present-day usage as well as the historical development of these tendencies. (Author/VWL)

From the point of view of AILA's research network "CLIL and Immersion Education: Applied Linguistic Perspectives" this volume finally does justice to a strand of interest that has been part of the network from its inception. As the editors rightly point out in the introduction, ReN events and publications during the network's first period have focused more strongly on school-level education than on the post-secondary sector, and so it is truly timely that this volume of "AILA Review" should redress the balance. In combination, the contributions in this collection weave a multifaceted picture of the European experience with regard to the ongoing surge in English-medium university teaching, ranging from individual courses to entire curricula being administered in that language. As one reviews the motives and aims which institutions and stakeholders appear to connect with the introduction of English-medium teaching one can, the author wishes to argue, discern three broad types of motivation: (1) Strategic; (2) Pedagogical; and (3) Substantial. The contributions to this volume furnish examples for all of these motives even though they may not be considered equally important by the participants in each context. Despite the special dynamism present in European higher education today, the author would not like to ignore the concerns shared across the AILA Research Network as a whole. The fact that researchers with different contextual orientations have been interacting and cooperating profitably and successfully since 2006 is witness enough that there is a significant number of common concerns where a shared discourse helps to clarify the issues and to sharpen theoretical and methodological notions. Subject-matter teaching in English raises highly relevant questions regarding the role of English as an educational lingua franca, a subject which the contributions in this volume also begin to explore. But the practices described in the studies are intriguing to applied linguists not only in terms of their theoretical and empirical research interests. They also affect them on a very direct professional level: subject-matter teaching in English transgresses well-established disciplinary and system-inherent borders creating considerable insecurities along the way.

0. Preface As a group historical linguists seem curiously attached to a rather positivist view of history. We seem to think that by putting together as much detail as possible, [...]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue including immersion teaching, foreign language teaching and teacher professional development.